Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Stories Commentaries
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Stories Commentaries (Read 670 times)
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6110
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #40 - Nov 6th, 2019 at 9:14am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 6th, 2019 at 8:54am:
So you claim to have read Story's commentaries, except that you didn't. Tsk tsk.


I said that I read the index.

Edited:
Actually, you said,  "not until you look through the index," and I said in the next post, "I did look through it," which I did.







  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #41 - Nov 6th, 2019 at 1:36pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 6th, 2019 at 9:14am:
I said that I read the index.

Edited:
Actually, you said,  "not until you look through the index," and I said in the next post, "I did look through it," which I did.







"It was interesting enough to read it when I was in high school.  So I read it.  In high school."

"Maybe not that exact thing from Mr. Story..."

LBM
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #42 - Nov 6th, 2019 at 1:57pm
Print Post  
From Book II, Chapter 4:

(Speaking of defects in the Articles of Confederation)

§ 268. The last defect, which seems worthy of enumeration, is, that the confederation never had a ratification of the PEOPLE. Upon this objection, it will be sufficient to quote a single passage from the same celebrated work, as it affords a very striking commentary upon some extraordinary doctrines recently promulgated.58 “Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the state legislatures, it [the confederation] has been exposed to frequent and intricate questions concerning the validity of its powers; and has, in some instances, given birth to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratification to a law of a state, it has been contended, that the same authority might repeal the law, by which it was ratified. However gross a heresy it may be to maintain, that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has had respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper, than in the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”59
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6110
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #43 - Nov 6th, 2019 at 2:14pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 6th, 2019 at 1:36pm:
"It was interesting enough to read it when I was in high school.  So I read it.  In high school."

"Maybe not that exact thing from Mr. Story..."

LBM


I guess I’m being dense, here.  How does that merit a “tsk, tsk?”
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6110
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #44 - Nov 6th, 2019 at 2:15pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 6th, 2019 at 1:57pm:
From Book II, Chapter 4:

(Speaking of defects in the Articles of Confederation)

§ 268. The last defect, which seems worthy of enumeration, is, that the confederation never had a ratification of the PEOPLE. Upon this objection, it will be sufficient to quote a single passage from the same celebrated work, as it affords a very striking commentary upon some extraordinary doctrines recently promulgated.58 “Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the state legislatures, it [the confederation] has been exposed to frequent and intricate questions concerning the validity of its powers; and has, in some instances, given birth to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratification to a law of a state, it has been contended, that the same authority might repeal the law, by which it was ratified. However gross a heresy it may be to maintain, that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has had respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper, than in the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”59


I am not sure you can legitimately make that argument with such a tiny percent of the people being allowed to consent or not consent.

The argument for ongoing consent by people not even born when the government was formed is that we aren’t rioting in the streets.  So the same argument could be made for the articles of confederation.


  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #45 - Nov 6th, 2019 at 2:23pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 6th, 2019 at 2:14pm:
I guess I’m being dense, here.  How does that merit a “tsk, tsk?”

I did ask you to at least look through the index.

You said you did and found it all very interesting.

I replied:

"All very interesting, but not interesting enough to read any of it, right?"

To which you replied:

"It was interesting enough to read it when I was in high school.  So I read it.  In high school.

Maybe not that exact thing from Mr. Story, but the federalist papers the other commentaries - including arguments against the new constitution - along with that French dude whose name escapes me... "

Tsk tsk.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6110
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #46 - Nov 6th, 2019 at 2:28pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 6th, 2019 at 2:23pm:
I did ask you to at least look through the index.

You said you did and found it all very interesting.

I replied:

"All very interesting, but not interesting enough to read any of it, right?"

To which you replied:

"It was interesting enough to read it when I was in high school.  So I read it.  In high school.

Maybe not that exact thing from Mr. Story, but the federalist papers the other commentaries - including arguments against the new constitution - along with that French dude whose name escapes me... "

Tsk tsk.


All of that is true.
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 49721
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #47 - Nov 6th, 2019 at 2:30pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Nov 6th, 2019 at 2:15pm:
I am not sure you can legitimately make that argument with such a tiny percent of the people being allowed to consent or not consent.




Only the State legislatures consented to the Articles of Confederation.

The argument for ongoing consent to the Constitution is the ability to alter or abolish the Constitution... But that can also only be done with the consent of the people.

Your argument is that the consent must be unanimous, which was one of the defects in the Articles of Confederation. Every State had an absolute veto over any actions by the Confederation. If one state did not consent, whatever had been proposed was vetoed.

As an anarchist, you no doubt think that's a fine plan.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6110
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #48 - Nov 6th, 2019 at 2:31pm
Print Post  
I ask you to answer my question About the poker tournement.    You said:

Jeff wrote on Nov 5th, 2019 at 5:35pm:
Not until you tell me you looked through the index.

Did you find anything at all of interest to you?

Tell us what. Please. Thank you. Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley Smiley


I did tell you that I looked through the index and you still have not answered about the poker tournament.

So “tsk, tsk” you!


  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6110
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Stories Commentaries
Reply #49 - Nov 6th, 2019 at 2:36pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Nov 6th, 2019 at 2:30pm:
Only the State legislatures consented to the Articles of Confederation.


That’s who consented to the constitution, isn’t it? 

Was there a plebiscite that I’ve never read about?

Quote:
The argument for ongoing consent to the Constitution is the ability to alter or abolish the Constitution... But that can also only be done with the consent of the people.


But that is in the constitution itself, which living people did not consent to.

It’s like your HOA writing you a letter saying, “here’s the new bylaws.  If you don’t like them, don’t worry.  Just follow the forty-seven step process in the new by-laws to change them and make sure you have three-fifths of the homeowners to agree with you.”

I’d rather just throw the “new by-laws” in the trash.

Quote:
Your argument is that the consent must be unanimous, which was one of the defects in the Articles of Confederation. Every State had an absolute veto over any actions by the Confederation. If one state did not consent, whatever had been proposed was vetoed.

As an anarchist, you no doubt think that's a fine plan.


Right, just like if one player did not consent to a chop, there was no chop.  No one whined about that.

So, how many players should it take to rightfully have the power to force the remaining players to chop?
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 13
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Stories Commentaries
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy